Larry Scantlebury was another at the center of an RIAA lawsuit, however he died in June - with the suit remaining unresolved. Not to be deterred by the death of the defendant, the Plaintiffs (Warner Bros. Records Inc., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., BMG Music, Arista Records LLC, Capitol Records, Inc., and Atlantic Recording Corporation) have made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to "grieve", after which time they want RIAA lawyers to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children:

In support thereof, Plaintiffs state the following:

1. Plaintiffs have recently learned that Defendant, Larry Scantlebury, passed away on June 20, 2006. Please see the attached Death Certificate.

2. Prior to Mr. Scantlebury’s passing, Plaintiffs believed that there was potential to resolve the case. While at the time of Mr. Scantlebury’s death, he had not responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery (he had asked for and received extensions), he had indicated that others, in addition to Mr. Scantlebury, were involved in the infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.

3. Plaintiffs do not believe it appropriate to discuss a resolution of the case with the family so close to Mr. Scantlebury’s passing. Plaintiffs therefore request a stay of 60 days to allow the family additional time to grieve.

4. In the event the parties do not reach a resolution with Mr. Scantlebury’s estate or the other family members involved, Plaintiffs anticipate amending the complaint following depositions of members of Mr. Scantlebury’s family.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this court stay the case for 60 days and extend all deadlines 60 days.

This is ridiculous, and notably, against the law. Gambitrox introduced a great point, how can your charge the kids for the alleged sins of the father?
The RIAA just want their 45-5000$, and its fairly evident with their blind inquisition type blame, they should be disbanded as a group.
Immediately, before more innocent people fall victim to their evil!
Where can I sign the damned petition condemning the RIAA?

That is the final straw. I will never purchase or listen to anything put out by the RIAA ever again. And any artist that goes through the RIAA to produce their records. I will Change my listening habits to listen to independent groups who have thier own websites where all the money that i spend will go to directly to the artist for whatever they wanna use it for. As far as I remember we currently pay a tax for our blank media that goes towards covering the cost of making things like a cd of music. I read this a long time ago(When this all started), but I havent heard anything about it lately.
I keep up to date on anything RIAA related, and even though this is a quick and hurried post and it may not seem like it, but i am somewhat knowledgable on this stuff.
Everyone should just stop buying cd's from stores and, buy directly from an independents artist website.
These independent artists Put out great music, better than goerge strait and garth brooks anyday.
Just give them a chance. Later on I ll post some links for everyone if they want them.
Gotta go, going to florida.

You can not blame someone else for something that you did! (This also applies in this situation)
_____
@vert: Have a good vacation!
___
P.S.
The 60 days to grieve is just to pretend that they are caring people.

Well this is the "New Corporate America" is anyone really that suprised. How much airtime do you think this case will get on television? They've already paid for the politicians, and the media. It was a sound investment, now they can legally steal from any one of us.
In the new corporate america, you don't have to produce a great, or even good product.
You just have to have enough power to sue if they don't buy.

Thank goodness it's the Recording Industry Association of AMERICA. Still, we're plagued with adverts for FACT at cinemas now, and various notices from the UK's puppet-leaders of piracy control. I know the MAFIAA are still behind it.

While I'm totally sick of the RIAA, I think some of you missed that MR. Scantlebury said,
"he had indicated that others, in addition to Mr. Scantlebury, were involved in the infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights."
They're not just transfering the suit; that would be illegal, as most of you have stated. If the kids did it as well, they should pay whatever percentage they are responsible for.

food for thought ... they are attempting to settle the disposion of the the astate of the defendent. but it should be up to the Judge to throw it out.... this will be a case that stirs alot of controversey , but it shows that untill its thrown out of court it will be just one more unresoulved issue or avenoue for them to pressue . with any rightgestness and hounor this will be thrown out in 60 days. this bears watching.... as does the RIAA and their tacktics... the main stream public needs to get this info and we need to spread the word of this type of gorilla tackticks that they are willing to persue...

I haven't purchased a cd that had anything to do with the RIAA for three years now. Haven't listened to any, haven't downloaded any, no interest, none at all, no radio, no mtv, no vh1, they can all drop off the face of the planet and I couldn't be happier. Our music has become so benignly commercialized in the last decade or two its ridiculous, and if you people want change, you better do what I have done. All of you, because that is the only way it will happen. Throw in an extra year for the ad execs to catch on to the fact that noone is buying this BS anymore and we'll have our brave new world!

When my mother passed away we paid all of her outstanding bills. But, when the cable company claimed she hadn't returned all of the equipment, I just wrote "Deceased - All equipment returned." on the bill and sent it back. I think we received a couple more bills, but I just wrote "deceased" on them. I had an advantage that they didn't know who I was or how to contact me.
As far as I know, the RIAA has not won an actual court case yet, and the odds are agianst them on this one! (The MPAA has won a case.)

It seems the RIAA maggots are wanting to feed off dead carrion now. No humane person presiding over this side show of a circus, could ever let this go to trial. Or maybe this does need to be aired in public courtroom. It certainly won't be on the news otherwise. May their lot all rot in Hell and suffer Prometheus's fate.

Quote:However, once the issue started getting a bunch of attention over the weekend on various blogs, the RIAA has now decided to drop the case. They explain that the man who passed away had admitted that his stepson had actually done the file sharing, so they were simply trying to finalize the details of a settlement. However, out of their "abundance of sensitivity" (yes, they used that phrase), they have decided to drop the case. Seems a bit funny that said abundance of sensitivity didn't show up until the equally abundant "bad PR" hit the internet.

So the only reason they dropped it was because of bad PR.The "abundance of sensitivity" phrase is such a crock or bull if they were really that sensitive they would have dropped it before they got bad attention on the matter.

Shame on you America! Is this the land of the free indeed!?!?! For how long do we have to stand this s..t??? I'm refusing to by LEGAL CD's or DVD's of rap artist, 'cos I've seen some of them bying rims for their cars which costed 250 grand!!! 250 grand..... for rims.... on your car.... that's bulls..t!!!

I think that they are seeing the oil companies record profet's and they want it too. Unlike my need to drive to work i do not need to see a movie or listen to the new music. Most of the movies and some of the music is just reamakes of someone elses work i do not need to buy a new rerun. I am doing my part and not buying there product. That is the true way to hurt them and it does not cost me a dime. If i like a song, I just buy the one song. If I like a story I read the book (the movie is usally a poor substitute anyway) most people i know only like 1 or 2 songs on a ablbum anyway.
Maybe they will learn there lesson, but the fat lawyers will most likely tell them that it is their right to make more money even though no want wants to buy the product.
TDL

consider this is 10 or so persent of music buyers dont buy cds that means a whole acouple 100 or less in thier pokects and 10+ grand or less for the music indutry,the manchine eats to much of it for it to realy effect artist's,if you like whoer and buy them thats fine but soem people are going to have to fight and get the music machine to stop gorgeing on profts....
the actual number of stuff not bought is a 10'th of what they are saying they are going by bloated estimations,becuse when given the choice a cheap bastard would tape from the radio in sted of shell out 15 for a CD with 3 good songs on it....

It is not the RIAA or the MPAA doing the law suits, it is a bunch of lawyers suing in their name. Once lawyers see a crack and know they can make money from it, they are going to use it. The RIAA and the MPAA are going to go along with things thinking that this will alleviate their problems. Back when all this crap started, the MPAA made an announcement saying that they were not concerned about the sharing of old movies, it is just the downloading of the new movies that bothered them. After the lawyers saw the dollar signs floating in front of them, they really got involved pushing politicians to change the copyright laws from 21 years to 99 years, make downloading almost anything against the law. Actually, the lawyers have the MPAA and the RIAA between a rock and a hard space. If the lawyers let up, the studios loose to the pirates...if the lawyers push as they are now, the studios loose in public opinion....Just as in so many other areas of life, the lawyers screw things up for all concerned...

I noticed that when I made the previous post, there were ad banners for two lawyer firms at the top of the page...sort of ironic that lawyers would be advertising on Aftersawn in forums against lawyers.....

Before the RIAA started this witch hunt, I would download a song to see if I wanted to buy the CD. I bought many. Since then, I haven't bought a single one, I'll enjoy the ones I already have.
If they come to their senses, I'll buy again.

Goodbye RIAA. The artist have never made much from the selling of records. Artists depend upon their concerts and tours in order to make money. That is how they can afford those 250,000 dollar rims.
If anyone has ever read a musicians biography they will tell you how many times they were turned down by the major labels. I read Garth Brooks biography and he was turned down several times and was on his way out of the business when someone finally gave him a break. I use to like Garth Brooks in the beginning before that chris gaines crazy stuff, but that is for another time.
I wonder how many times an artist has killed themselves because all they ever wanted to do was to make a record but the RIAA turned them down. There are stories where artists were told they were crap by some labels only to be picked up by some small studio where they became a hot number one seller. Why should the RIAA control whether or not someone gets to make a record. That kind of decision should be left up to the public. The RIAA is brutal to Artists. I wonder how many Artists have killed themselves because of the RIAA? Not even givin a chance for the world to hear.
The current model is not working. The RIAA is only trying to hold on to something that is no longer valid. I am not saying that we have a good replacement for the current model but I think we should work on it. Instead of the RIAA turning artists down, Why not give them a shot with at least one recording that can be posted on a website for emerging artist that people can actually log on and check out some stuff and rate it to see if that particular artist should get a chance for a full cd. Let the public decide. How about a radio station for everyone who dont have internet that would play those same songs and people could call in and request a cd single or something like that. You see, that would take the power away from the RIAA and give it to the artist who can decide which label he wants to go with. That would also take away the greediness and and force the RIAA to be more ready to share profits with the artist and fostor more competition. Let the artist pick one of their best songs to be recorded and put on the radio station andwebsite and if they would advertise to the mainstream public, I bet this would be probably the hottest radio station around. i would definitly listen to it because all radio stations do these days is play the same song over and over. Remember Acky Breaky Heart. I wanted to kill myself over that one. ( just kidding)
It goes on and on and youre probaly as tired of reading this as I am typing it so let me know if this is a good idea or if its bieng done or add your own ideas. Thanks for letting me rant!!!
Get with the times RIAA or risk losing it all!!!

vert
can not agress more the labels bleed the selling of the media dry,for mos the money is made else where,for a few the industry must pay them mroe in order to sell more of thier media or whatever tis bascily a machien that feeds itself and gives you little in return....at least untill your rich and famous then they want to be friends and make deals 0-o

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

Added note pertaining to copyrights......I got a response from a group thats fighting the RIAA and the MPAA,,,,Response from them below....
-----------snip------------------------
Dear XXXXXX --
Please don't consider this legal advice -- just some common information --
First, since Congress DID, in HRRC's view unfortunately, change the law in 1998, anything from 1923 onward can still be protected for decades to come. Even some movies that, through technical mishaps, were considered to be in the public domain, such as "It's A Wonderful Life," have been effectively "recaptured" by focusing on elements, such as parts of a soundtrack, that are still protectible. So your understanding that the content itself is public domain material might not be correct or, at least, up to date.
Second, and fortunately, one of HRRC's biggest victories has been protecting from movie industry attack the copyright law's "first sale" doctrine, which is a part of U.S. law but might not be part of the law in some other countries. This provision, 17 U.S.C. Section 109 -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_000001... -- says that even though the content owner has rights over the COPYING or the PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of a work, it does NOT have rights over the physical distribution of the material on which the copy resides -- such as a book, video cassette, or DVD -- after its first sale in commerce. This is what keeps libraries, for instance, lawful, and it is what allows a video store to BUY a DVD and RENT IT FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE without needing any permission from the content owner. (Some exceptions for the RENTAL of music CDs and computer programs were enacted I think in 1988 but they too can be re-sold as used.) SO, whatever copyright rules might apply to copying from your DVD, the law is clear that content owners have no power to control or object to the subsequent sale or rental of DVDs once they have been sold. (The law is less clear in this regard about content that you obtain by buying a DOWNLOAD to a blank, recordable DVD -- this is likely to be a controversial issue; stay tuned.)
-------------------snip-------------------------
There has been formed a new FBI Internet Copyright Task Force that will use laws based on the drug inforcement regulations which means that property can be confiscated when some authority just thinks one has copyrighted material in their possession. This has caused a lot of innocent people to loose everything. The government/police make it near immpossible to re-claim one's property when it is shown that one is innocent.
A copy of a facitious letter sent to my state representative is below..
-----------------snip---------------------
Since [IP] copyrights have been extended to 99 years and the payment of one dollar can renew a copyright for another 99 years, don't you think that [IP] patents should be given the same consideration.
Under the newly proposed copyright laws and web pages being copyrighted just by their exsistence, the ability of internet browsers to save pages should be curtailed as should the download feature. This may become an obstical to some internet businesses that sell software over the 'net and distribute information such as manuals and 'how to' instructions but it would save the newly formed FBI Internet Copyright Task Force a lot of time and money, not to mention the innocent people from getting their property confiscated for no reason other than suspicion.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 21 Aug 2006 @ 11:52

sammorris & hot_ice:
You guys have probally read enough of my prior commments on this subject and know that we agree on most of the points brought up in these topics. I'm with you guys and lets all hope that everyone else will come to their sences and see what is actually going on!!!

Just a little bit of wonderind. I wonder where music would be without the RIAA? We have been told what type of music to listen to for a very long time. The RIAA has controlled what we get to hear since almost the beginning. and in further thinking on this, They have taken away our freedom of speech by telling artists "we dont like your music and you cant say that in your song".

We'd probably have better music, as has been said here before, think how many artists didn't make it due to the RIAA? The one reason I don't go absolutely berserk about programs like American Idol (I don't like them!) is that they offer artists a chance for success, and if they have talent, they get to publish their stuff, and the world of music is better for it. Nice surname by the way! :D

sammorris
I dont like American Idol I rarely see talent.....its Like todays Conrty music they should jsut call it CRAP is its now "contry rap/hiphop"
I see the music indutry trying to hard to ride on fads trends and sex,talent and great music....is a rareity .....

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 23 Aug 2006 @ 2:48

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

The only reason they do these stupid cases is to get attension and try to give the message "You can't run from it and it will get you no matter who you are" See now they even dropped it after all the "press coverage" of it has gone down...

I think in this case they stepped down because they'd made their case and would be bombarded by the press had they continued. They're not out to stop all illegal downloading activities, because that just isn't feasible, but they're out to stop a few of the big names and make a big pile of cash while they're at it.